The club evaluates the moves in view of the second strand of the federal investigation: for now it is preparing the defense brief to be delivered by the day after tomorrow
Dialogue. A word used not by chance by Francesco Calvo, the Chief Football Officer of Juventus, immediately after the decision of the Sports Guarantee Board at Coni on -15 in the standings. Juve’s appeal was partially accepted, but the confirmation of the sentences of those who were the top management of the club (from Agnelli to Arrivabene, passing through Paratici and Cherubini) is not a good sign for the future. So much so that on the second line, linked to the two salary maneuvers and the alleged offenses with the agents (investigation closed by the prosecutor Giuseppe Chiné on April 12, but Juve not yet deferred), the company is also reflecting on the possibility of asking the prosecutor for a plea bargain. “It’s an option”, filtered by Continassa, even if Juve are now preparing the defensive report to be delivered by the day after tomorrow.
The defense can request a plea bargain before or after the referral, if there is no recidivism (Articles 126 and 127). What changes? In the first case, according to the sporting justice code, the penalty is reduced by half and the FIGC president authorizes the request, on indication of the prosecution. If Juve, on the other hand, were to move only after the referral, the penalty would be reduced by a third. It is clear, however, that these measures are merely indicative, because as the word implies, in the plea agreement there is a substantial negotiation to find an agreement on the sentence. A scenario, for now, only hypothetical. But isn’t Juve a repeat offender? The doubt arises on the fact that she is accused of violation of the art. 4 (“sporting disloyalty”) in both proceedings. But within this article, the hypotheses of crime are many and, among other things, one can be seen as the simple continuation of the other.
Image
—
Obviously Chiné and Juve’s lawyers would take care of the plea deal. Even if both parties would then have to face the image return of a possible agreement. The Juventus club, for example, has always proclaimed its innocence. The plea deal is a defensive strategy, but in terms of communication it could be perceived by the fans as an admission of guilt. Just as the public prosecutor’s office could dissatisfy part of public opinion convinced that Juve’s alleged crimes are of absolute gravity and deserve exemplary punishment. Who is it more convenient for?
April 25 – 08:39
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED
